From: Ben Heaton (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Jan 30 2006 - 01:28:09 MST
On 1/30/06, Kevin Osborne <email@example.com> wrote:
> I thought the idea is that any code is better code than no code
This is not the case when it comes to AGI; getting it wrong could be
far worse than doing nothing. A critical failure of Friendliness is a
pretty bad existential risk.
> It seems intuitive that encouraging people _not_ to
> program in the AGI sphere would be counterproductive.
Unless encouraging people who are on the low end of "genius" means
increasing the odds that the first successful AGI will be less
Friendly than it would have been, had the standards of AGI project
recruiters been less compromising.
Speed and safety are competing factors in this. Do you try to start
the Singularity as quickly as possible, or wait until you're really
sure you can do it right, with as much margin for error as possible? I
get the impression that the seed developer qualifications page is not
just firmly on the side of safety, but designed to make sure that
people motivated by speed who read it will be personally dissuaded.
-- No sale, honcho!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:55 MDT